Is Hate the deepest principle of all things?

The reason destruction is the aim of neither is of course that there is no such thing as evil, no central point to destroy. Destruction occurs as a side effect. The vengful always run into the truth that they themselves are the closest thing to evil.

The group regards the view that slaves hated their masters as false and it has something to do with academically produced ideology which comes into the daily discussion of everyone. The group has given, above, several reasons not to believe that. The group wastes the group’s time by ignoring what was written, and writing without responding to it.

The group means by hate, in the most clear case, the rejoicing in cruelty one feels in causing pain with no need for a concern with self defense. In a certain sense, human being hate stones on this view. Hate is a kind of fullness of disrespect, but one which is great in that it feeds the one who hates and gives them their life. For instance, in the release of stress the alpha animal has, in openly and freely abusing the weak.

The lion is the king of the beasts, the human is the one who hates existence to the hilt.

The group appreciates this word of the group, which is in keeping with what the group had in mind.

Perhaps this word of the group is so, the group says: is disdain equivalent to a kind of self reserve? In self reserve, one has not the enjoyment of the relief of stress. But, if anything, a greater stress.

The group says, in this sense disdain seems much like the sense of invulnerability. Ergo, it is far from the absurd academic (liberal-democratic ideological ersatz) notion that hate is bound to its own fear of the hated thing.

For instance, the “watermelon grin” which is the demeaning of the hated black man, to such a level that he loves his masters, and grins when granted their favor, the favor of the ones he loves. Since here one sees the profundity of the vile situation which the sanctimonious idiot academic ideology utterly occludes. This is very visible if one sees that the feelings of segregation era South, of resentment and some hate, for the white southerner, is already outside the slavery situation proper, already marks a break in it and the cusp of transformation on the objective surface of social life.

The group says, in this sense, a second disdain, that of bravery and hate, points away from hate’s disdain to self struggle and painful truthfulness of the inner vision.

The group says, it would be fatal for the one who has hate in the core of their being, to encounter love in their field of vision, or as part of their frame of mind. Then they would slump over, give way, lose all intensity of their attempt, cease to laugh when the other falls, become dissipated and begin to love as the salve of all.

The group likes this distinction of cruelty.

The disdainful are disdainful of cruelty. Cruelty is only undertaken by those who expected goodwill in return for goodwill and got some more ancient abuse than cruelty instead.

Disdain does not seek release because it has nothing to be released from. There is no stress, stress being a consequence of hard work. Self reservation may be a tool of the disdainful to encourage engagement. The disdainful are too disdainful to think that any could make use of what is reserved, it is only reserved to cause temptation into bravery in those that may or may not have the stuff for it.

A disdainful man will usually have stated quite clearly all his positions which uninteligability served to create his disdain.

In the same way that love would undo a hateful man, bravery would instantly undo a disdainful one.

The group can accept the first sentence, since the disdainful may even disdain to rejoice in cruelty. But, the group can not stay with the second statement. This is out of keeping with its conception of cruelty, and also of hate. Cruelty is sheer delight in ruthless use of the other, it has no connection to a crestfallen disillusionment or anything of the sort. The lion is surely not a disillusioned beast, but it smiles within the center of its heart, laughing deeply at the kill which it toys with. The kill had never been contemplated under any other concept, but the exaltation and enjoyment of the cruel one.

The group finds this much too Marxist and academic. It is sheer fancy motivated by ideology, an attempt to manipulate or coerce a political opponent. It has no basis outside the university department and the apostles therein claimed and sent out into the world to fight for it. And then, of course, those it trickles down on in the popular discussion derivative on those sources. This is very bad of the group to suffer such cheap tendentious confections to enter its fold.

Bravery more often accompanies disdain, and fosters it. Think of Socrates, the most disdainful of them all. He who set aside all the goals of the others, their αγροίκος σοφίᾱ, bumpkin science, in full self-independence. Seeking to know himself.

To set aside even the joy of the lion, sheer cruelty, has something unbearably high in it. It almost seems divine. However, it turns towards what is more difficult by far.

There’s no crestfallenness about it. It is more like a waking up, a new and improved understanding of the world.

Lions are not cruel. It is not the anguish of the victim that they relish, but their own ability to prevent their escape, the joy in their own hunting instinct. The victim has no feelings in their mind, only escape plans. Cruelty relishes pain, only something recognized can be relished.

Regarding disdain, it is daisdainful because it has never been forced or even challenged to exert its strength.

Socrates was not disdainful. Proof of this is that he cared what people thought. Disdain is Diogenes. No exertion was required to prove Xeno foolish.

But Socrates was a cynic, and knew of the cynic tradition of disdain, and imitated it to impress and convince his interlocutors. That was the farce.

Bravery is where strength challenges its limits to appear. So when strength is at full exertion.

A lion, for instance, would be incapable of sistematic, calm, unemotional torture where the enemy is fully bound. But this is the high point of cruelty. Cold disection of the feeling of pain in his enemy.

Some might think that an undound victim is better for that victim feels also the pain of feeling he can escape.

But the truth is that being fully bound before the intention of inflicting the most possible pain is far more horrifying and sublime.

Lol, but a Leo would think the unbound is better. For the reasons I stated above. There is no vengefulness in lions.

Love is similar. Love seeks to explore every feeling of joy and pleasure in its counterpart.

Diadain and bravery don’t acknowledge lover or victim, only brothers in battle and disagreeable weaklings.

In the case of women, not brothers in battle but a similar kind of appreciation.

Not even disagreeable. Unworthy of consideration.

The group may have a point.

LOL. The group has self-hate, even without having been whipped.

The group is not interested in polemics, but only serious speech which first lets the sparks battle.

The group says, the group has been remiss. Since it does not adequately distinguish anger, and the pain of anger, which in some sense does correspond to the tendentious ideological academic view of being gripped by the one who has anger, or, is angry, for (along with the stupid belief that shouting and the like are signs of importance, whereas, on that view, the mere disparaging glance of the authority is the sign of true power: ergo, a simple-minded and naive attempt to make the institution all-powerful, and the human being a mere function of the institution), and the deep being of hate. For anger is always essentially involuntary,. Yet, not hate. Hate is like being oneself. It is like Goethe’s saying: The joys of personality.